Everybody has Spring Attack

[77IM]

So I've DMed a few sessions of Caves of Chaos. We're using the grid (it's what we're used to, and we like it, and one of the players has a really sweet collection of minis). Now, AoOs/OAs are completely gone, and it turns out I don't miss them AT ALL. The combats are much faster and more dynamic, and easier to run, without worrying about "threatened zones" and making a bunch of extra attack rolls.

...But, by the rules, you can take your action at any point during your movement. This has led to two phenomena:

1. Everybody has Spring Attack. You can run in to melee, stab a guy, and then run BACK around the corner, out of range and next to the Defender. Even the wizard can "Spring Burning Hands" to line up a shot and then retreat to safety. Worse, if the PCs have formed a choke-point, enemies can use this tactic against them by having each monster run up, make an attack, then run away, clearing the square for a new monster.

2. Ranged attackers in melee can move back, shoot, then move UP to re-form the line (notably for our laser-cleric who picked up a shield and is now a decent front-liner). Taking disadvantage for making a ranged attack never happens unless you are truly pinned.


I have a potential house-rule fix and want to run it past the peanut gallery before exposing my players to a potentially bad idea. What if you just couldn't split your movement. So you can take your action before or after your movement but not during. This eliminates the spring-attack issues entirely. It doesn't quite solve the ranged attack issues but seems like it should help; it forces a ranged attacker to move out of melee and adopt a new position which may be a worse position in some other way.

What do you think, sirs?

-- 77IM

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Your idea seems reasonable, particularly if there was a future feat that did allow such mid-movement shenanigans. However, the other option if you didn't want to layer on that sort of stuff and keep things freeform is that you can attack in the middle of your movement but at a penalty to attack (-4 perhaps?). That way, you are not saying that someone cannot do something but that it's hard to do as effectively as a normal attack. Again you could have a feat (or feat chain) alleviate this penalty.

With spellcasting though, as casting is not a check (something I think non-cantrip spells should be), this becomes a little harder, and I'd be more inclined as such to say that you cannot cast spells in the middle (or perhaps even at the end?) of a move. Otherwise a caster level check may be appropriate? I think they have made the act and difficulty of spellcasting a little too trivial; but that's most likely best discussed on a different thread.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Agamon]

If you're playing a more tactically-minded game, that should work fine. There will eventually be tactical rules to use with gridded combat, so if that's the way you like to play, I say have at 'er!

 

[BobTheNob]

Totally with you.

 

[Ferghis]

Our game has been okay with the rules as they are, and we use the grid. If we abuse the unfettered movement, the DM calls for a Str check, and failure means you stop there. The DM has been not been pushing the monsters to use super astute tactics, which, at least in my mind, is in the spirit of the game for the most part, in part because the monsters are not brilliant, in part because much of D&D melee has always been "walk up to the enemy and hit them." This would definitely change if we were facing something smarter.

 

[Rhenny]

Our game has been okay with the rules as they are, and we use the grid. If we abuse the unfettered movement, the DM calls for a Str check, and failure means you stop there. The DM has been not been pushing the monsters to use super astute tactics, which, at least in my mind, is in the spirit of the game for the most part, in part because the monsters are not brilliant, in part because much of D&D melee has always been "walk up to the enemy and hit them." This would definitely change if we were facing something smarter.

That sounds like the best way to do it. I could even see making PCs/Monsters make Dex/Wisdom/Charisma (choose 1) checks to see if they can move away from a combatant. If it is randomized somehow, there is less likelihood that it will be abused. (they can be checks or contests depending on how you like to use them) I personally like DC 10+foe's prime ability bonus for a check.

Dex = quick move, agility dodge
Wisdom = insight to know when to defend and when to break away
Charisma = feint or bluff, distracting foe so that you can break away

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm still fond of the idea that threatened space is difficult terrain. It mitigates most of these problems.

 

[LostSoul]

I wouldn't mind it if you had to move the way you were facing after an attack (or moving backwards was slower, say 10' of your movement to go 5').

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I wouldn't mind it if you had to move the way you were facing after an attack (or moving backwards was slower, say 10' of your movement to go 5').

I would love for facing to be in an advanced rules module! Just saying.
This moderates the squares a combatant can threaten but demands a more involved way of conducting initiative (so that combatants can change facing as a free action as part of any other action or reaction). In other words there is a cost associated with such things.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Connorsrpg]

I would NOT change the ability to attack at any point during your movement. It made for mobile combats that were awesome in our playtest. If people move away the enemy can always follow.

However, we did intorduce an OA that did not limit the mobile fights. In our game you promoted an OA if you moved away from an adjacent armed enemy if you did not attack them durng that round. Worked very well!

Also, regarding the ranged attackers moving to and from complete cover. If they lose sight of their target you could always rule it takes an action to 'resight' them when they next reemerge. I did not go that harsh. I did tell players that that is what it would take if their targets had changed positions on the battlefield. They said that seemed fair and it worked well (though it did not come into play that often).

But, from our experience, I urge you to NOT change the take action any time during your move rule. This was one of the things we loved the most about the new rules. Cheers and I hope your playtest finishes off well.